Relations with the Gods

Here's one that has turned over in my brain more the past year or two than any other.  How do we relate to Gods and Goddesses from different pantheons?  That's a pretty wide question, so let's narrow the scope a little, here.  Let's presume a hard polytheistic approach to deity, as anecdotal observation by various respected pagans suggests is more an more the case as modern Paganism continues to develop.  I'm also approaching from that angle as it's more and more my take on deity.  And let's stick to a ecclectic Wiccan approach to ritual, though by no means do I feel the need to.

Papa Legba's Veve

Now, I know how I've decided to relate to my deities, and while I wrestle with details, I think I've come across a reasonable approach.  That being I recognize other deities and give them their due honor, but after much struggle, I find it difficult to adopt them within my regular practice.  For instance, I was recently drawn to Papa Legba, of the Vodun traditions.  He and I have some history outside of actual practice and belief, and we share a lot of commonalities such as language and travel.  But Papa Legba has a very particular way in which he likes to be approached and, as with many Loa of the Afro-Carribean traditions, he does not get drawn down.  He rides you.  You might take a Religio-Wiccana approach to it and say that the spirits riding you is very much akin to drawing down a deity.  And in some respects, you'd be right.  But that is not the view of Vodouisants, at least so far as I understand it.  And so, while I pay my respects to Papa Legba, I have chosen not to incorporate him directly into formal ritual.  I'm not saying other pagans need to approach it this way, it's just how I have.  Indeed, it's critically important given the format of modern paganism that each practitioner arrives at their understanding organically.

So how have pagan groups approached others worshipping their deities?  Neo-pagans I think have it right on the head in that from what I read of it, it was an orthopraxy, not an orthodoxy, at least with respect to European traditions.  It was more important to conduct the ritual appropriately to the deities with whom you associated than to which deities you conducted your rituals.  That, however, greatly oversimplifies it.

In Greece, for instance, Zeus was the head of the Gods and the others fell in rank below him in some fashion or another.  He wasn't omnipotent, infallable, or even exclusive, but he was the top of the heap and while other Deities were recognized, Zeus and his family of Gods and spirits were always the heart of Greek worship and practice.  And what's more, there was a way in which you paid your respects to the Greek Gods, often in the form of sacrifice.  And that way was not the way they are addressed through some modern rituals, particularly outside of the reconstructionist mold.  I feel adopting them whole-cloth as deities within my own circle is somewhat like vigorously shaking the hand of a previously uncontacted tribesman.  He'll have absolutely no idea what I'm getting at by that gesture, and may or may not get a warm fuzzy feeling from me doing so.

The ancient Romans, on the other hand, engaged in what is often referred to as Religio Romana, that is, they tried to find analogues between their own Deities and the Deities of other cultures.  And in many cases there is evidence that those other cultures obliged when they fell within the Roman sphere.  Again, the Romans had their pantheon of Deities.  And while they were far more willing to adopt other deities as officially recognized cults within the empire, you still paid your respects in a very particular way to the state Deities, while privately addressing the deities and spirits of your family, home, and city in their own unique ways.  This, perhaps, is closer to the modern Neo-Pagan approach.

But again, it wasn't the whom, it was the how.  You were free to conduct ritual or prayer to Apollo, indeed you'd be expected to in Rome, even as an outsider.  But you'd be expected to do so appropriately.  And again, the four elements, drawing-down, divine couple approach of Wiccan-inspired paganism is not necessarily in keeping with that.  So am I not allowed to pay respects to Artemis?  Certainly that isn't the case.  But I get a little uneasy addressing her using ritual as I've learned it.

Pan

And here's where it gets interesting to me.  The Romans took their Religio Romana tack with respect to the Greek pantheon.  I think anyone who has had even the slightest education in the classical Greco-Roman world is familiar with the striking similarities between the Greek and Roman Deities.  In large part that's because the Romans did their best to fit the Greek Gods into their world view.  Did they view them as 'aspects' of the Roman Gods?  I think that depends on the Roman in question and the time period.  And I think some argument could be made for both having in some sense been true.  This, of course, gets more complicated as you get further into the commonalities in Indo-European, Afro-Carribean, etc deities.  But that's a topic for another post.

In all of this I've found myself walking away from the idea of aspects.  Indeed I think I've always felt a little uncomfortable with calling the Goddess of Wicca by Astarte or Diana or the God by the name Pan.  To me they are not forms of the triple Goddess or Horned One written about in so many books despite their similarities, but are entirely their own character.  However, in my view they are, perhaps, related.  This view is developing as I go along and as I find myself drawing closer to the divine.

From what I've seen, I'd agree with the hypothesis that modern pagans are drifting more toward polytheism. And I think we are headed quickly for a Roman-style model of recognition of deities, though I don't think state deities are part of that picture.  It is, in essence, almost a Unitarian Universalist approach, but distinctly pagan flavored.